this is a bbc news special, as attention switches to the defence in donald trump's second impeachment trial. mr trump's lawyers make their case why the former president is not guilty of inciting the deadly storming of the us capitol last month. they argue that democratic prosecutors failed to directly connect the actions of the rioters to mr trump. no thinking person could seriously believe that the president's january six speech on the ellipse was in any way and incitement to violence or insurrection. this is the scene live on capitol hill — where day four of the former president's trial will resume after a break.

hello and welcome if you're watching in the uk or around the world. also with my colleaguejoan o'brien in washington, more from jane in a moment. donald trump's lawyers have opened his defence case in the senate impeachment trial by saying he did not incite the 6th of january riot in which the capitol building was invaded by protestors. mr trump's team is due to resume its presentation shortly, they've indicated it will take no more than four hours, far less than the 16 hours they are permitted.

which means that this could be going to a speedy conclusion. the house ending up with some kind of a result, if you like, to say some kind of a judgement on this trial proceedings tomorrow. michael van der veen from donald trump's legal team accused the basis of the impeachment of being a lie: to claim that the president in any way wished, desired or encouraged lawless or violent behaviour is a preposterous and monstrous lie. in fact, the first two messages the president sent via twitter once the incursion of the capital began were, stay peaceful and no violence, because we are the party of law and order. michael van der veen also accused the impeachment process of being unconstitutional. not only is this impeachment case preposterously wrong on the facts, no matter how much heat and emotion is injected by the political opposition, it is also plainly unconstitutional. in effect, congress would

be claiming that the right to disqualify a private citizen, no longer a government official, from running for public office. this would transform the solemn impeachment process to a mechanism for asserting congressional control over which private citizens are and are not allowed to run for president. in short, this unprecedented effort is not about democrats opposing political violence, it is about democrats trying to disqualify their political opposition. it is constitutional cancel culture. michael van der veen said

the riots were pre—planned — he said mrtrump he said mr trump as enhanced rights of the president. you he said mr trump as enhanced rights of the president.— of the president. you must re'ect this invitation �* of the president. you must re'ect this invitation to ignore �* of the president. you must re'ect this invitation to ignore the h of the president. you must reject this invitation to ignore the first i this invitation to ignore the first amendment. it is anti—american, and would set a dangerous precedent forever. the law has developed over the years to clearly establish elected officials have the right to engage in protected speech. mr trump is notjust engage in protected speech. mr trump is not just a engage in protected speech. mr trump is notjust a guy on the street, or a guy at a bar, or is notjust a guy on the street, or a guy ata bar, ora is notjust a guy on the street, or a guy at a bar, or a fire chief were a guy at a bar, or a fire chief were a police officer. there were a few of them in there. all analogies given by the house managers. these sideways analogies are wrong. mr trump was an elected official and there's an entire body of law, supreme court landmark cases

supporting the conclusion that mr trump actually has enhanced free—speech rights because he is an elected official. these cases are ignored by the house managers and law professors. and that too is total intellectual dishonesty. michael van der veen said the riots were pre—planned — not incited by donald trump. he said mr trump as enhanced rights of the president. the criminals who infiltrated the capital must be punished to the fullest extent of the law, they should be in prison for as long as the law allows. the fact that the attacks were apparently premeditated, as alleged by the house managers, demonstrates the ludicrousness of the incitement allegation against the president. you cannot incite what was already going to happen.

david schoen from donald trump's legal team accused the democrats of withholding evidence: why was this not see before? shouldn't president trump have the right to sue the so—called new evidence against him? more importantly, the riots and the attack on this very building was a major event that shocked and impacted all americans. shouldn't the american people have seen this footage as soon as it was available? for what possible reason did the house managers withhold it from the american people and president trump's lawyers? we can cross live to our correspondent gary o'donoghue on capitol hill. to share with us your thoughts of what we've been listening to in the last few hours. fix, what we've been listening to in the last few hem-— last few hours. a lot more robust attem ts last few hours. a lot more robust attempts to _ last few hours. a lot more robust attempts to defend _ last few hours. a lot more robust attempts to defend the _ last few hours. a lot more robust attempts to defend the former i attempts to defend the former president and we saw in the beginning of this trial from his team — beginning of this trial from his team. they came out swinging, really — team. they came out swinging, really a — team. they came out swinging, really. a whole range of different

parts _ really. a whole range of different parts of _ really. a whole range of different parts of the defence, particularly around _ parts of the defence, particularly around the first amendment protection of free speech. also accusing — protection of free speech. also accusing repeatedly, accusing democrats of hypocrisy because of the nature — democrats of hypocrisy because of the nature of language that all politicians use. they played lots and lots — politicians use. they played lots and lots and lots of clips over and over_ and lots and lots of clips over and over again — and lots and lots of clips over and over again of democrats using the same _ over again of democrats using the same kind — over again of democrats using the same kind of language they say as the former— same kind of language they say as the former president used. they suggested that democrats have manipulated the evidence, that they had misrepresented some of the editing _ had misrepresented some of the editing in — had misrepresented some of the editing in the videos, that they had gone _ editing in the videos, that they had gone about this in the spirit of hatred — gone about this in the spirit of hatred they said. hatred, vitriol and political opportunism. and when it came _ and political opportunism. and when it came to— and political opportunism. and when it came to the whole process he said you would _ it came to the whole process he said you would get more due process challenging a parking ticket than the former president got with this impeachment process. and the former president got with this impeachment process.— the former president got with this impeachment process. and a lot of the defence _ impeachment process. and a lot of the defence of _ impeachment process. and a lot of the defence of the _ impeachment process. and a lot of the defence of the patient - impeachment process. and a lot of the defence of the patient has - the defence of the patient has centred around what others have done another defence of what the

president has said. is another defence of what the president has said.- another defence of what the president has said. is been a lot of comparisons _ president has said. is been a lot of comparisons with _ president has said. is been a lot of comparisons with what _ president has said. is been a lot of comparisons with what democrats | president has said. is been a lot of- comparisons with what democrats have done, _ comparisons with what democrats have done, that's— comparisons with what democrats have done, that's right, but they have 'ust done, that's right, but they have just been— done, that's right, but they have just been gone through that speech at the _ just been gone through that speech at the rally before the attack on the congress here, and they said look, _ the congress here, and they said took. yeah. — the congress here, and they said look, yeah, the president used the fi-ht look, yeah, the president used the fight word, — look, yeah, the president used the fight word, the one that the democrats have said, he used it 20 times _ democrats have said, he used it 20 times but — democrats have said, he used it 20 times. but there's a reason the democrats _ times. but there's a reason the democrats only used two of those examples, because the other 18 times shows— examples, because the other 18 times shows you _ examples, because the other 18 times shows you and what spirit he was using _ shows you and what spirit he was using that — shows you and what spirit he was using that language. figuratively, metaphorically, the kind of way that all sorts— metaphorically, the kind of way that all sorts of— metaphorically, the kind of way that all sorts of politicians use that language. so they're trying to establish the fact that he did not have _ establish the fact that he did not have any— establish the fact that he did not have any intent to incite violence or insurrection, and that he was 'ust or insurrection, and that he was just doing — or insurrection, and that he was just doing what every politician does. — just doing what every politician does, and by the way, they say, it is protected — does, and by the way, they say, it is protected speech. just information _ is protected speech. just information coming - is protected speech. just information coming to i is protected speech. jut information coming to us from the

reuters news agency saying thatjoe biden wants her publicans to take their responsibilities seriously in an impeachment trial. no bigger breaking news there, —— no big breaking news there, —— no big breaking news there, —— no big breaking news there. this boils down to who is going to vote white, and how long that's going to take. now if we understand the defence counsel just use four hours of the permitted 16 hours, this could come to a speedy conclusion we understand. yes, joe biden on yourfirst point has stayed well away from this, as far as possible. when he had to say something about he said will i think they should take it seriously, which is as empty as it gets about. we think they may finish in about four hours. will be about four hours of questioning from senators, that may have been today and then you get the closing statements. as a real

possibility this could be done and dusted by early tomorrow evening. the president could wake up sunday morning given the indications that they've been acquitted for a second time. ,, ., , they've been acquitted for a second time. ,, , g. “ , time. stay with us, jane o'brien is in washington. — time. stay with us, jane o'brien is in washington, we _ time. stay with us, jane o'brien is in washington, we have _ time. stay with us, jane o'brien is in washington, we have both - time. stay with us, jane o'brien is in washington, we have both the i in washington, we have both the washing that's very closely for the last few hours as well. what did you make of what you heard? j last few hours as well. what did you make of what you heard?— last few hours as well. what did you make of what you heard? i think the fact that they _ make of what you heard? i think the fact that they just _ make of what you heard? i think the fact that they just fence _ make of what you heard? i think the fact that they just fence have - fact that they just fence have decided to keep their presentation for a short is a strong indication of it doesn't matter what they say at this point, they're pretty confident that they have got enough republican senators who are going to vote to acquit donald trump and therefore the case rests. it will come to a speedy conclusion possibly tomorrow, but really the presentation by the house managers, the case that they outlined over the last two days using some very strong material, very forceful video evidence, that case that they

presented really has not done much to sway republican senators. 17 of whom will be needed to cross the aisle and vote with democrats if donald trump is to be convicted. so i think from the point of view of the impeachment proceeding, this is pretty much done and dusted. the bigger issue, though, of course is how this plays out in the court of public opinion. will it go down as part of donald trump's legacy, will it cause republican voters to stay away from him in the future? and will it also caused the republican party in a more general sense to come to a reckoning with exactly how they deal with donald trump moving on over the next several years. and on over the next several years. and what that means _ on over the next several years. and what that means for the republican party. and gary, i think has gone for a little break. rightly so. he will be back with us of course at the senate reconvenes. jane, it's interesting as you just said about

the 17 members that need to vote against donald trump. talk us through how that works because is a two thirds majority required to convict the former president in that evenly split 100 senate. the convict the former president in that evenly split 100 senate.— convict the former president in that evenly split 100 senate. the need 67 to convict, which _ evenly split 100 senate. the need 67 to convict, which means _ evenly split 100 senate. the need 67 to convict, which means they - evenly split 100 senate. the need 67 to convict, which means they need i evenly split 100 senate. the need 67| to convict, which means they need 70 republican senators. we have a handful that say or indicate they made vote to convict. what's interesting is that nikki haley, who is the former us ambassador to the un, a very staunch trump loyalist has been speaking publicly and saying that in an interview that the president she works for is not the person she witnessed in the aftermath of the election, and that donald trump needs to be exiled, and that he is really toast us for she is concerned. that's a very specific break with donald trump from a very

seniorformer member of break with donald trump from a very senior former member of his cabinet. which is an indication that perhaps more broadly republicans are starting to think yes, this trial could be giving them the cover they need to break with donald trump and move on from this part of the party public history. move on from this part of the party public history-— public history. fascinating to see how this is _ public history. fascinating to see how this is unraveling. _ public history. fascinating to see how this is unraveling. gary - public history. fascinating to see how this is unraveling. gary is i public history. fascinating to see l how this is unraveling. gary is back with us, sorry if i cut your break a little bit short there. good to see you. a number of people have been seen was having a social media here and then following it, so much as tweeted me to say when will donald trump appear? of course he is not appearing, izzy? trio trump appear? of course he is not appearing. lay?— trump appear? of course he is not appearing, izzy? no go i don't know wh the appearing, izzy? no go i don't know why they think _ appearing, izzy? no go i don't know why they think he _ appearing, izzy? no go i don't know why they think he would _ appearing, izzy? no go i don't know why they think he would be. - appearing, izzy? no go i don't know why they think he would be. his - why they think he would be. his lawyers — why they think he would be. his lawyers made that very clear before the trial, _ lawyers made that very clear before the trial, and he did not appear at the trial, and he did not appear at the last— the trial, and he did not appear at the last one and frankly would be magister— the last one and frankly would be magister him to appear at this trial — magister him to appear at this trial. there's no indication that either— trial. there's no indication that either side _ trial. there's no indication that either side are looking to call witnesses and additional documents. there _ witnesses and additional documents. there is— witnesses and additional documents. there is an _ witnesses and additional documents. there is an interest in both sides and having — there is an interest in both sides and having this over pretty quickly.

which _ and having this over pretty quickly. which is _ and having this over pretty quickly. which is why we are getting this compressed schedule and will have the shortest impeachment trial in history _ the shortest impeachment trial in history. he's looking on from down in morrow— history. he's looking on from down in morrow lago in florida and played lolf in morrow lago in florida and played golf for— in morrow lago in florida and played golf for the _ in morrow lago in florida and played golf for the prosecution work continuing their case. he's watching his defence — continuing their case. he's watching his defence team apparently been pretty— his defence team apparently been pretty unhappy about some of them. i think it _ pretty unhappy about some of them. i think it would be a little bit happier— think it would be a little bit happier today because it's been a lot more — happier today because it's been a lot more robust than it was the other— lot more robust than it was the other day _ lot more robust than it was the other day. in some ways he can be relaxed _ other day. in some ways he can be relaxed because the odds are he would _ relaxed because the odds are he would be — relaxed because the odds are he would be acquitted. i think the one fly in _ would be acquitted. i think the one fly in the _ would be acquitted. i think the one fly in the ointment is the still uncertain— fly in the ointment is the still uncertain position of mitch mcconnell, the republican leader in the senate. we think he will vote to acquit— the senate. we think he will vote to acguit but— the senate. we think he will vote to acquit but we don't know and he has not said _ acquit but we don't know and he has not said. even his closest aides are not said. even his closest aides are not sure _ not said. even his closest aides are not sure what he's going to do. if he starts — not sure what he's going to do. if he starts to— not sure what he's going to do. if he starts to indicate what he might do to— he starts to indicate what he might do to vote — he starts to indicate what he might do to vote to convict that could change — do to vote to convict that could change the weather for a bunch of

republicans. and bear in mind mitch mcconnell— republicans. and bear in mind mitch mcconnell had just been reelected, 78 years _ mcconnell had just been reelected, 78 years old. this may be his last term _ 78 years old. this may be his last term in— 78 years old. this may be his last term in the — 78 years old. this may be his last term in the senate, and he is someone _ term in the senate, and he is someone who very much wants to see the republican party in the future succeed _ the republican party in the future succeed rather than tear itself apart— succeed rather than tear itself apart in— succeed rather than tear itself apart in the civil war.- succeed rather than tear itself apart in the civil war. apart in the civilwar. gary, it's jane apart in the civilwar. gary, it's jane here _ apart in the civilwar. gary, it's jane here sitting _ apart in the civilwar. gary, it's jane here sitting of _ apart in the civilwar. gary, it's jane here sitting of the - apart in the civilwar. gary, it's jane here sitting of the road i apart in the civil war. gary, it's l jane here sitting of the road from you in the studio. good to see you. you were talking about donald trump watching his reaction, what about the broader audience? some of the residents are some of the defence that we are just now seems to be playing very much to donald trump's base. what do you make of that? it’s base. what do you make of that? it's interesting, some of the polling that has— interesting, some of the polling that has been done suggest there's a majority— that has been done suggest there's a majority in _ that has been done suggest there's a majority in the country, not a massive _ majority in the country, not a massive one but a majority in the country _ massive one but a majority in the country for— massive one but a majority in the country for conviction. it's difficult _ country for conviction. it's difficult to see the extent to which this trial— difficult to see the extent to which this trial would be seen as anything other— this trial would be seen as anything other than— this trial would be seen as anything

other than partisan terms out there. ithink— other than partisan terms out there. i think democrats will have made up their minds— i think democrats will have made up their minds before proceeding started. — their minds before proceeding started, and republicans would've made _ started, and republicans would've made up _ started, and republicans would've made up their minds. are there many undecideds? — made up their minds. are there many undecideds? i very much doubt it. when _ undecideds? i very much doubt it. when to— undecideds? i very much doubt it. when to give you one purely personal anecdotal— when to give you one purely personal anecdotal example of there being interest— anecdotal example of there being interest in this, when i have left the capital— interest in this, when i have left the capital each afternoon this week i've the capital each afternoon this week we gotten— the capital each afternoon this week i've gotten in a cabin each time it each _ i've gotten in a cabin each time it each time — i've gotten in a cabin each time it each time the cab driver has been listening — each time the cab driver has been listening to the trial. that really surprised — listening to the trial. that really surprised me that there was that level _ surprised me that there was that level. three out of three, my little unscientific— level. three out of three, my little unscientific survey there. i think there _ unscientific survey there. i think there is— unscientific survey there. i think there is interest and certainly in understanding and the public that these _ understanding and the public that these are — understanding and the public that these are major historic and constitutional moments. the unanswered question is what would it mean _ unanswered question is what would it mean for— unanswered question is what would it mean for the re future of the republican party if he is acquitted, does that— republican party if he is acquitted, does that leave him on the stage and to people _ does that leave him on the stage and to people they can nikki haley have the ability— to people they can nikki haley have the ability to brush them aside or does _ the ability to brush them aside or does the — the ability to brush them aside or does the base? and bear in mind the

one thing _ does the base? and bear in mind the one thing that the trump presidency did in— one thing that the trump presidency did in the _ one thing that the trump presidency did in the trump organisation did as it builds _ did in the trump organisation did as it builds a _ did in the trump organisation did as it builds a fantastically well manned, well organised, well—connected grassroots organisation. that is still there in place _ organisation. that is still there in place. raised a lot of money in the postelection period. there still structures in place, whether they can last — structures in place, whether they can last for— structures in place, whether they can last for four years for him to run in _ can last for four years for him to run in a — can last for four years for him to run in a primary is another question. _ run in a primary is another question, but he's notjust one guy in morrow— question, but he's notjust one guy in morrow lago. waiting to see whether— in morrow lago. waiting to see whether or not he can regain the white _ whether or not he can regain the white house he's got people out there _ white house he's got people out there rooting for him right across there rooting for him right across the country. there rooting for him right across the country-— there rooting for him right across the country. staying with us, gary as we continue _ the country. staying with us, gary as we continue to _ the country. staying with us, gary as we continue to bring _ the country. staying with us, gary as we continue to bring breaking i as we continue to bring breaking news here of our life continuing coverage of donald trump's impeachment trial. that is capitol

hilljust outside of the main building there where the senate of course is gathering. or we have been hearing for the last two hours or so donald trump's defence lawyers are presenting evidence in the senate and denying charges that he incited insurrection on the 6th of january. we have jane o'brien with us also watching carefully and has been, like myself, been with you. let's remind you what we heard not too long ago from one of his defence lawyers who asked is the word fight off limits? have a listen. ads, lawyers who asked is the word fight off limits? have a listen.— off limits? have a listen. a boxer fiuuhtin off limits? have a listen. a boxer fighting with _ off limits? have a listen. a boxer fighting with his _ off limits? have a listen. a boxer fighting with his hands _ off limits? have a listen. a boxer fighting with his hands tied - off limits? have a listen. a boxerl fighting with his hands tied behind his back? members of congress fighting, rudy being rudy. these are the metaphorical, rhetorical uses of the metaphorical, rhetorical uses of the word fight. we all know that, right? suddenly the word fight is

off limits? spare us the hypocrisy and false indignation. it's a term used over and over and over again by politicians on both sides of the aisle. and of course the democrat house managers knows of the work has been used figuratively in political speech forever. fine been used figuratively in political speech forever.— speech forever. one of donald trum's speech forever. one of donald trump's defence _ speech forever. one of donald trump's defence team - speech forever. one of donald i trump's defence team speaking speech forever. one of donald - trump's defence team speaking their short time ago, we should just influence happening right now. we should do a very empty of capitol hill there in the main senate and we expect them to be reconvening very soon as soon as these proceedings start we will bring you here. i we've been hearing, not only michael there but the other representative for donald trump saying that the case lacked any real evidence

presenting video presentation and said it was like making movies and a huge live. so much what we heard from the defence counsel yesterday. at some point these the same argument. jamie raskin, who is one of the house managers said that the video evidence has to be looked at in a broader context, that donald trump has a pattern of rhetoric that at times condones violence and embraces violence, and that the video that proceeded directly the events of january the 6th was not an aberration but the culmination of the sort of rhetoric that he employed. and that he should have known or intended that there was violence that would follow. as the basis of their case. michael use the same exact defence saying that

context does matter, and what you did was edit that video and you did not show it in context, and you did not show it in context, and you did not show it in context, and you did not show that the following statements from president trump when he said let's peacefully walk and patriotically go to the capital. the issue of course is does that one phrase negate all of the previous rhetoric? and then michael and david brought in the hole argument of free speech which is that the president's comments are protected by the first amendment. but constitutional lawyers and the democrats say well, if you are betraying your oath of office, if you are in violation of your oath of office, which they say donald trump is, then free speech does not matter. take your pick but at the end of the day as i said before it doesn't really matter because it doesn't look like they have enough senators to convict. this have enough senators to convict. as you are saying, the 17 required to do that. i'm just wondering what your view is of the fact that we know, well from what we have

gathered of the permitted 16 hours for defence counsel to present its findings. there were only perhaps 20 years about four hours. herjust over two hours of that. they want to wrap this up pretty quickly. bath wrap this up pretty quickly. both sides do, wrap this up pretty quickly. both sides do. they — wrap this up pretty quickly. both sides do, they want _ wrap this up pretty quickly. both sides do, they want to _ wrap this up pretty quickly. errtfl sides do, they want to move wrap this up pretty quickly. errt'j sides do, they want to move on. the republicans feel that this is distraction and they want to come you know, really move away from this. of course it's a huge problem for them because they've got to decide how to deal with that. the points that gary was making earlier, that trump supporters are numerous and very well organised. for the republican party it's a matter of maths. they don't have enough supporters without donald trump's supporters, and donald trump's supporters, and donald trump's supporters don't have enough without more moderate republicans to actually make any meaningful difference in any future elections. so they need to each other. how did

the two parties straddle this? how do they move forward? can you move forward together? and these are far more broad questions for the republican party this trial has really brought to a head. they are going to have to confront this at some point. is going to have to confront this at some point-— going to have to confront this at some point. going to have to confront this at some oint. , , , ., ., some point. is my understanding that after the defence _ some point. is my understanding that after the defence case _ some point. is my understanding that after the defence case they _ some point. is my understanding that after the defence case they will- after the defence case they will have a number of hours to present questions to legal teams. and that's going to be followed by a debate and a vote to allow witnesses to come forward if either side wants to present that, is that right? i forward if either side wants to present that, is that right? i don't think we are _ present that, is that right? i don't think we are going _ present that, is that right? i don't think we are going to _ present that, is that right? i don't think we are going to see - present that, is that right? i don't i think we are going to see witnesses. they pretty much have ruled that out, it will be a question and answerform. they've been asked out, it will be a question and answer form. they've been asked to submit questions to the managers, how long that takes we don't know. you know, this is of course unprecedented territory. very unlike the previous trial, the impeachment trial which of course donald trump was acquitted in. this is a very different trial but it does look as

if it could wrap up tomorrow with that vote. , ,., if it could wrap up tomorrow with that vote. , ., , , , ., , that vote. they said wrapping up as earl as that vote. they said wrapping up as early as saturday _ that vote. they said wrapping up as early as saturday night _ that vote. they said wrapping up as early as saturday night or _ that vote. they said wrapping up as early as saturday night or monday i that vote. they said wrapping up as | early as saturday night or monday at the latest. less than a week from start to finish. it centres on both sides indicating that this is very likely. thank you so much, stay with us as we will have of course more with you and gary reacting to those proceedings as soon as they begin, of course will bring them to you here live on bbc world news and bbc ukjoining us. just reminder though uk joining us. just reminder though that ukjoining us. just reminder though that he's accused the basis of this impeachment of being a lie, let's listen to what he had to say. to claim that the president in any way wished, desired or encouraged lawless or violent behaviour is a preposterous and monstrous lie. in fact, the first two messages the president sent via twitter once the incursion of the capital began were, stay peaceful and no violence, because we are the party

of law and order. he also went on to accuse the impeachment process of being unconstitutional. not only is this impeachment case preposterously wrong on the facts, no matter how much heat and emotion is injected by the political opposition, it is also plainly unconstitutional. in effect, congress would be claiming that the right to disqualify a private citizen, no longer a government official, from running for public office. this would transform the solemn impeachment process to a mechanism for asserting congressional control over which private citizens are and are not allowed to run for president. in short, this unprecedented effort is not about democrats opposing political violence, it is about democrats trying to disqualify their political opposition.

it is constitutional cancel culture. michael, whojust michael, who just saw there, went on to defend donald trump on the grounds of the first amendment of freedom of speech saying that mr trump had enhanced rights as the president. trump had enhanced rights as the resident. ., , . , president. you must re'ect this invitation to h president. you must re'ect this invitation to ignore _ president. you must re'ect this invitation to ignore the]- president. you must reject this invitation to ignore the first. invitation to ignore the first amendment. it is anti—american and would set dangerous precedent forever. the law has developed over the years to clearly establish elected officials have the right to engage in protected speech. esther trump is notjust a guy on the street, ora trump is notjust a guy on the street, or a guy at the bar, or a fire chief or police officer, there were a few of them in there. all

analogies given by the house managers. these sideways analogies are wrong. mrtrump managers. these sideways analogies are wrong. mr trump was an elected official and there's an entire body official and there's an entire body of law, supreme court landmark cases supporting the conclusion that mr trump actually has enhanced free—speech rights because he is an elected official. these cases are ignored by the house managers and law professors. and that to is total intellectual dishonesty. up—to—date with some of what we heard in the us senate thereby donald trump's defence team there. gary is here for us, and jane o'brien, i should say is in washington.— us, and jane o'brien, i should say is in washington. does gary want to tell me something? _ is in washington. does gary want to tell me something? i—

is in washington. does gary want to tell me something? i believe - is in washington. does gary want to tell me something? i believe that l tell me something? i believe that the are. tell me something? i believe that they are- it's _ tell me something? i believe that they are. it's watching _ tell me something? i believe that they are. it's watching hours - tell me something? i believe that they are. it's watching hours and | they are. it's watching hours and hours of the us senate that is making my eyes go funny. interesting when we hear what has been said by michael and also by david to come of the two members of donald trump's defence team. gary, i mean, no real surprises of what we are hearing. have there been any for you? i surprises of what we are hearing. have there been any for you? i think one of the things _ have there been any for you? i think one of the things that's _ have there been any for you? i think one of the things that's going - have there been any for you? i think one of the things that's going to - have there been any for you? i think one of the things that's going to be i one of the things that's going to be really crucial in the next couple of hours is to what extent do donald trump's lawyers address the business of what he did and did not do once the attack on the capital took place. it's fine, in some ways, to say look, his leg which was figurative committee did not intend them to come appear and start chucking fire extinguishers through windows and kicking in capitol police officers and running around the court shouting where are you nancy? he didn't intend that any of that but once it started happening what was his reaction? and of course

the democrats is that he did nothing. he did absolutely nothing for hours. it took him two hours, they say quick to call the national guard. eventually he released a video message talking about being peaceful, but saying about the people who had done all this, we love you, you are good people. you know, praising the people that had been up here. so i think that is a real problem for donald trump's lawyers. how do they address his reaction even if his intentions were to cause this number that he had the ability to step in and tell his supporters to stop it, and stop it fast, and did not do that. that is a real problem for him i think. as they pointed out in their case, donald trump is not shy about making his views known when he wants something to happen, or when he does not like something. there were a blizzard of tweets in the run up to

that rally encouraging people to come to dc, lots and lots of talk about the bogus rigged election, stopping the steel and etc. then it just goes dark. itjust goes completely dark while it's all happening. talk about him being detached from an understanding according to some of the reports, not understanding what everyone else at the white house was not excited about what was happening. unverified, unnamed sources say that of course so we cannot know for sure. but what was his response? and why did he not do anything in those first couple of hours to try and call off his supporters. it's clear that they were doing it in his name, they said so. they said so. they were reading out his tweets outside the capital from a reading were reading out his tweets outside the capitalfrom a reading out were reading out his tweets outside the capital from a reading out his criticisms of mike pence. and bear in mind they were looking for mike pence, what did they say about mike pence? hang up mike pence is what they said as they wander the

corridors. it they said as they wander the corridors-— they said as they wander the corridors. , , . , . corridors. it seems that they are inanorin corridors. it seems that they are ignoring that _ corridors. it seems that they are ignoring that whole _ corridors. it seems that they are ignoring that whole issue - corridors. it seems that they are ignoring that whole issue at - corridors. it seems that they are ignoring that whole issue at the | ignoring that whole issue at the moment. the omission, the house manager put forward and these comments, our president wants us to be sure. we take orders from our president. it was very clear that the protesters at least thought they were acting at the behest of donald trump. do you think that they are going to try and tackle this in the next couple of hours or are they just resting their case knowing that republican senators probably are not going to be swayed by the democrats case? it’s going to be swayed by the democrats case? �* , ' . going to be swayed by the democrats case? 2 m ,, going to be swayed by the democrats case? �*, m , case? it's difficult because in this sense, case? it's difficult because in this sense. what _ case? it's difficult because in this sense, what can _ case? it's difficult because in this sense, what can they _ case? it's difficult because in this sense, what can they say - case? it's difficult because in this| sense, what can they say because where's the evidence of this intervention. i think they could see he was busy behind the scenes trying to calm things down but i think donald trump doesn't do things like that when he wants to calm things down. so, iwould not be

that when he wants to calm things down. so, i would not be surprised if they're adjusted it with a greater detail because i think there will be a question and answer session and certainly if i was the house manager, i would be suggesting through the channels to some of those democrats in the senate, what do you ask them about this? asked them what he was doing and why he didn't try to stop it. even if you believed his supporters that misunderstood him, why didn't he stepped in? to the mind that it was going on? i'd be getting them to do that. so i think they're going to have to address that one way or another. it may be better for them to address it under their own terms now. but, they have to be on the back foot later on when the q&a session comes in the republican senators will be pressing democrats on the rhetoric that is been demonstrated from their own site. their answer could be well, you

know, did our rhetoric leave to five deaths in the space of two hours on capitol hill?— capitol hill? word coming from the white house _ capitol hill? word coming from the white house and _ capitol hill? word coming from the white house and the _ capitol hill? word coming from the white house and the press - capitol hill? word coming from the. white house and the press secretary has said the riot pictures show, a reminder of why that can't happen again. in asking any senator to vote again. in asking any senator to vote a certain way. very, very much confirming that we're talking about earlier about how he does not want to get involved. ho. earlier about how he does not want to get involved.— to get involved. no. this is something _ to get involved. no. this is something he _ to get involved. no. this is something he absolutely i to get involved. no. this is - something he absolutely wants to stay away for and you should take the responsibility seriously is set at one point is the opposite might be true. yet, he is staying away because if the likelihood the donald trump is acquitted in and it's a bank of the fee for the white house

politically and there's no point of them taking a hit on this one. so leaving it up to congress and also come up at the risk of sounding like a civics lesson, it's quite important in this country and people believe it's quite important in this country that the different branches of government do their business and unhindered by the other, congress is the first branch of government. it is article one of the constitution. it has the role and sole power to impeach etc, etc. in the other big executive branch try to interfere with that process then people would get very constitutional, i tell you. thank you very much. back inside the us senate where proceedings are about to reconvene. let'sjust us senate where proceedings are about to reconvene. let's just have about to reconvene. let's just have a listen and.

about to reconvene. let's 'ust have a listen and.— about to reconvene. let's 'ust have a listen anti.— a listen and. senators will take their seats. _ seeks recognition. mr castor is recognised _ the senate, good afternoon. it is my great privilege over the past couple of weeks to lead to this outstanding team of lawyers and dedicated professionals and the defence of the 45th president of the united states.

one of the most difficult things and leading such a talented group is deciding who is responsible for what and the strategy in order of presenting our evidence. and you have heard from the others on the importance of the first amendment and the importance of due process of law. and because i had the opportunity to set out the schedule, i decided that i would take the last substantive part of the case for myself. you can take that two ways. the first, perhaps is the best and that would be that it is almost over. the second is that perhaps you have to wait another hour and a fourth to be over. the reason why i

chose the section and believe me, it was a very difficult decision to make because i thought that the other arguments presented by mr sean mr vanderveen were outstandingly researched thoroughly vetted and wonderfully and articulately presented by them. but the critical issue in this case is the very narrow issue that is charged against the 45th president. in that issue is, did the 45th president engaged in incitement of they continue to say insurrection? clearly, there was no insurrection. insurrection is taking over a country, a shadow government taking this tv stations over and having some plan on what

you are going to do when you finally take power. clearly, this is not that. but our colleagues across the aisle meant is incitement to violence. to riot. the word incitement is the critical case in the critical issue in the case. the first time that she heard from us, i told you that you would never hear from our side that what happened on january six was anything other than horrific. and that the 45th president of the united states and his lawyers and his entire team adamantly announce that violence by those criminals that occurred in this very chamber. this very building. there was a reason why we started our presentation back on

tuesday in that way. because i did not want the senators to consider that there was any challenge to that particular fact. that there was any challenge to that particularfact. and that there was any challenge to that particular fact. and yet, that there was any challenge to that particularfact. and yet, the house manager, knowing that it was not contested at all chose to spend 1a plus hours showing you pictures of how horrific the attack was on the united states capital. how they spent no time at all in connecting legally the attack on the capital on the 45th president of the united states. which is the only question that needs to be answered. what's donald trump responsible for

inciting the violence that came to this building onjanuary six? now, by any measure, president trump is the most appropriate —— pro—police, his supporters know this, he made a clear throughout his presidency. he made it clear during the violence this past summer. he made it clear onjanuary six. but politics changes things. politics has created and interposed an element that should not be here. it

is interposed the element of hatred. in the political world changes when hatred becomes part of the dynamic. as we rode in our answer to the original charging document and i hope that this is a phrase that lives on long after we are all departed, and that i hope some this becomes the mantra by which all of us operate who work for the benefit of the public. if political hatred has no place in the americanjustice system and most certainly no place in the congress of the united states. to illustrate the contrast

that i'm of, we have a video. i am that i'm of, we have a video. i am our that i'm of, we have a video. i am your president — that i'm of, we have a video. i am your president of _ that i'm of, we have a video. i am your president of law _ that i'm of, we have a video. i am your president of law and - that i'm of, we have a video. i am your president of law and order and an ally— your president of law and order and an ally of— your president of law and order and an ally of all— your president of law and order and an ally of all peaceful protesters. the vast — an ally of all peaceful protesters. the vast majority of the protests of been peaceful. the vast majority of the protests of been peaceful-— the vast majority of the protests of been peaceful. republicans stand for law and order— been peaceful. republicans stand for law and order and _ been peaceful. republicans stand for law and order and we _ been peaceful. republicans stand for law and order and we stand - been peaceful. republicans stand for law and order and we stand for - law and order and we stand for justice — law and order and we stand for justice l— law and order and we stand for 'ustice. , ., ., , , justice. i 'ust do not see why there are not a justice. i just do not see why there are not a presence, _ justice. i just do not see why there are not a presence, maybe - justice. i just do not see why there are not a presence, maybe there l justice. i just do not see why there l are not a presence, maybe there will be. are not a presence, maybe there will be trig— are not a presence, maybe there will be. g ., , ., ., are not a presence, maybe there will be. ,., ., ., be. my administration will always stand against _ be. my administration will always stand against violence, _ be. my administration will always stand against violence, mayhem | be. my administration will always i stand against violence, mayhem and disorder _ stand against violence, mayhem and disorder i_ stand against violence, mayhem and disorder. i stand with the heroes of law enforcement. find disorder. i stand with the heroes of law enforcement.— disorder. i stand with the heroes of law enforcement. and you push back on them and — law enforcement. and you push back on them and you _ law enforcement. and you push back on them and you tell _ law enforcement. and you push back on them and you tell them _ law enforcement. and you push back on them and you tell them that - law enforcement. and you push back on them and you tell them that they | on them and you tell them that they are not— on them and you tell them that they are not welcomed. _ on them and you tell them that they are not welcomed. anymore. - on them and you tell them that they - are not welcomed. anymore. anywhere. i would take in behind the gym

locker rooms. the i would take in behind the gym locker rooms.— i would take in behind the gym locker rooms. ., ., ,, locker rooms. the need to take him back and punch _ locker rooms. the need to take him back and punch him _ locker rooms. the need to take him back and punch him in _ locker rooms. the need to take him back and punch him in the - locker rooms. the need to take him back and punch him in the face. - locker rooms. the need to take him back and punch him in the face. i i back and punch him in the face. i want back and punch him in the face. want to tell back and punch him in the face. i want to tell you, i want to tell you that you _ want to tell you, i want to tell you that you have _ want to tell you, i want to tell you that you have released _ want to tell you, i want to tell you that you have released the - want to tell you, i want to tell you i that you have released the whirlwind and you _ that you have released the whirlwind and you will— that you have released the whirlwind and you will pay— that you have released the whirlwind and you will pay a _ that you have released the whirlwind and you will pay a price. _ that you have released the whirlwind and you will pay a price. show- that you have released the whirlwind and you will pay a price.— and you will pay a price. show me where it says _ and you will pay a price. show me where it says protesters - and you will pay a price. show me where it says protesters are - where it says protesters are supposed to be polite and peaceful. is supposed to be polite and peaceful. is there _ supposed to be polite and peaceful. is there truly anyone in this chamber who disagrees with the words spoken by president trump on that video. surely not. surely not this contrast and in this context, i ask you to keep that in mind. my colleagues here, actually my colleagues here, actually my colleague here, hopes that you

don't. they have used selected editing and manipulated visuals to paint a picture for different from this truth. make no mistake and i will repeat it now and anytime i never asked, january six was a terrible day for a country. the attack on this building shocked us all. president trump did not incite or cause the horrific violence that occurred onjanuary or cause the horrific violence that occurred on january six 2021. or cause the horrific violence that occurred onjanuary six 2021. they know that. we note that the president did not incite the riot because of his plain words that day as mr vanderveen stated a few moments ago. the timeline of the events of that day. we've heard from the house manager and their ability

to analyse evidence and apply the statutes, timelines and figure out what happened based on circumstantial evidence in direct evidence and testimony and forensic analysis. i cannot recall any of the house managers that didn't make some reference to the bona fides. i spent more than three decades locking up chillers and —— chillers and i do nothing or two about applying facts to the to the law. the president but never of what it's such a riot to occur because his long—standing hatred for violent protesters and his love for law and order is on display and one on his sleeve every single day that he served in the white house. but if we are going to

apply the facts to the statute, it has to be done systematically, it has to be done systematically, it has to be done systematically, it has to be done with precision. the way the court would expect us to do that. let's look at the letter of the law. mr vanderveen give you an overview of the case and some of the related cases. you know that mr vanderveen listed the elements that he took verbatim or close to verbatim right out of there, they bore no reference whatsoever to the elements that were flashed up by the democrat managers the other day repeatedly. he actually used the supreme court's case. he didn't make it up. let's look at the letter of the law. the supreme court of the united states over 50 years ago laid out a clear test to determine whether or not speech is incitement.

under that test, there are three elements that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt whatever the senate considers, i suggest beyond reasonable doubt. first. the speech in question must explicitly or implicitly encourage the use of violence or lawless action. but here, the president speech called for peaceful protests. the speaker must say that the speech will result in the use of violence or lawless action and again, as mr vanderveen pointed out, the president deplores riots and violence and has done so throughout his term as president and never hesitated to express his admiration for the men and women

that protect this country. finally, the third element under the test is the third element under the test is the imminent use of violence, eminent use of violence, right then, the imminent use of violence or lawless action must be the likely result of the speech. the likely result of the speech. the likely result of the speech. the likely result of the speech. that argument is completely eviscerated by the fact that the violence was preplanned as confirmed by the fbi, department ofjustice and even the house managers. not the result of the speech at all. several of my colleagues got up and spoke about the proceeding in the house being like a grand jury proceeding. well, i've been a grand jury proceeding. i have run grand juries. grand jury proceedings, you call witnesses. user evidence. you make transcripts,

you take affidavits, you develop physical evidence, you share reports from police officers, you share forensic analysis from scientists and in fact, you invite the target of the grand jury to come in and testify if he or she pleases to be heard by the grand jury. which one of those things happened in the house prior to the impeachment article? i do not believe any of them. the suggestion of what happened in the house was anything at all like a grand jury investigating a case and prefer to get for prosecution is complete nonsense. if the house managers are trying to for you about that. you must ask yourself, what else are they trying to fool you about. let's

look more closely at the president speech. we have mentioned this before, but it is so critical that we need to talk about it again. the president asks that the attendees at his rally peacefully make their voices heard. j his rally peacefully make their voices heard.— his rally peacefully make their voices heard. ,, ., , ., voices heard. i know everyone will soon be marching _ voices heard. i know everyone will soon be marching over— voices heard. i know everyone will soon be marching over to - voices heard. i know everyone will soon be marching over to the - voices heard. i know everyone will. soon be marching over to the capital building _ soon be marching over to the capital building to _ soon be marching over to the capital building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard — the managers would have you believe that the president supporters usually follow his every word. but in this case, imputed some imaginary meaning to them while ignoring his most clear instructions. president

trump said peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard in the house managers took from that, go down to the capital and riot. so you're supposed to put your selves and the heads of the people who hear peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard and conclude that those words do not mean with the president said. more than that, but president criticised the destruction wrought by left—wing anarchists and rioters and toward supporters that the bill, they don't destroy. it supporters that the bill, they don't destro . , ., , , ., destroy. if this happened to the democrats. _ destroy. if this happened to the democrats, there _ destroy. if this happened to the democrats, there would - destroy. if this happened to the democrats, there would be - destroy. if this happened to the | democrats, there would be held destroy. if this happened to the - democrats, there would be held all over the _ democrats, there would be held all over the country going on. there would _ over the country going on. there would be — over the country going on. there would be hail all over the country. butjust_ would be hail all over the country. butjust remember this, you're but just remember this, you're smarter— but just remember this, you're smarter and butjust remember this, you're smarter and you've got more going

than anybody and they try and demean everybody— than anybody and they try and demean everybody having to do with us and you are _ everybody having to do with us and you are the — everybody having to do with us and you are the real people. you are the people _ you are the real people. you are the people that — you are the real people. you are the people that built this nation. you're — people that built this nation. you're not the people who tore down our nation _ you're not the people who tore down our nation ls — you're not the people who tore down our nation. is it you're not the people who tore down our nation. , , , , our nation. is it possible listening to those words _ our nation. is it possible listening to those words in _ our nation. is it possible listening to those words in the _ our nation. is it possible listening to those words in the proper- our nation. is it possible listening i to those words in the proper cadence without them being edited or the sound changed so that they are indistinguishable or sound as if the crowd is right there. listening to it as you have here and edited by us, is it possible to president trump's the stand for political violence could be any clearer to the persons listening as he was speaking? is it possible that his words could have been misunderstood. i suggest to you that is impossible. the house manager said the president

told the crowd, quote, you have to get out your people to fight. the house managers claims that the president of the united states is telling the audience to get each other to physically fight. but that is not what the president said. the people who should fight, he said, were members of congress. if they don't fight, but the president said, what should the rally attendees do? if members of congress wouldn't fight for the principles they held dear what was it that the president specifically told his supporters at that rally that he wanted them to do? he wanted them to support primary challenges. now, nobody in

this chamber is anxious to have a primary challenge. that is one truism i think we can say with some certainty. but that is the way we operate in this country. when the people of a state want to change their representatives and their senators, they use the electoral process. president trump told his listeners that if there are members of congress won't fight for their views, then go back home and find others that will. that is what president trump said. the people who should fight with the members of congress. —— were. should fight with the members of congress. -- were.— should fight with the members of congress. -- were. you've got to get our congress. -- were. you've got to get your people _ congress. -- were. you've got to get your people to — congress. -- were. you've got to get your people to fight. _ congress. -- were. you've got to get your people to fight. he _ congress. -- were. you've got to get your people to fight. he told - congress. -- were. you've got to get your people to fight. he told them. i your people to fight. he told them. you've _ your people to fight. he told them. you've got— your people to fight. he told them. you've got to get your people to fight — you've got to get your people to fight and _ you've got to get your people to fight and if they don't fight, we have _ fight and if they don't fight, we have the — fight and if they don't fight, we have the primary the hell out of the

ones that— have the primary the hell out of the ones that don't fight. he primary them _ ones that don't fight. he primary them were — ones that don't fight. he primary them were going to let you know who they are, _ them were going to let you know who they are, i— them were going to let you know who they are, i can already tell you frankly — they are, i can already tell you frankly lt _ they are, i can already tell you frankl . , , , they are, i can already tell you frankl. ,, _. ,, they are, i can already tell you frankl. ,, _. frankly. it is pretty stark contrast when ou frankly. it is pretty stark contrast when you watch _ frankly. it is pretty stark contrast when you watch that _ frankly. it is pretty stark contrast when you watch that video, - frankly. it is pretty stark contrast when you watch that video, isn't| frankly. it is pretty stark contrast l when you watch that video, isn't it. when you see the house manager tell you and, i don't know if we are under oath year, but when i walked into this room here i thought i was under oath, and not as a senator of the united states but before the entire world with god watching. a house manager got up and told you that the president of the united states on january the 6th, that the president of the united states onjanuary the 6th, 2021 told the crowd that they had to go and fight and the implication that they wanted you to draw was that he was sending them down to capitol hill to go and preach the building and trash the very

sacred halls of congress. but we know that is not at all anything near what the president said. with the president said was if you cannot get through members of congress to do as you would like them to do, you primary them. that is the american way. the first way that the house managers presented and wanted you to conclude, that is the criminal way. but the president said was the american way. again, the house managers manipulated president trump his words, but i cannot stand here and pretend to tell you that i know every time from all those videos that the house managers manipulated what the president said, put up evidence that was not with the

foundation of correctness and admissibility that we expect. i can't tell you that i picked up everyone, i don't think mr vander vena mr sean orany everyone, i don't think mr vander vena mr sean or any of the others that work with us can tell you that. but what i can tell is that there are also lots of times and i know that at least some of you were judges in previous lives and if one of the lawyers was able to create the impression that one side intentionally presented false or misleading evidence, thatjudge would give an instruction called false and one thing in false and everything. in other words, false and one thing in false and everything. in otherwords, if they're trying to fully about one thing, not only might they be trying

to fool you in something else, but under that maxim of the law, you may conclude that they're trying to fool you in everything else. president trump was immediate and his calls for calm and respect for law enforcement. the house managers emphasised president trump's tweet in the 6pm hour where he told crowds to quote, go home and love and peace ever remember this day. what is it that they left out. well, the house starts the recitation of the donald trump said as far as the aftermath of when the capital was breached at roughly six p:m.. what they don't tell you and didn't tell you which

you probably don't know because i think i'm the first one to say it, in this forum, is that a 238, president trump urged protesters at the us capitol to quote, stay peaceful, please support our capitol police and law enforcement, they are truly on the side of our country. stay peaceful and before we run the graphic, just want to point out to you, president trump speech ended at 1:11 p:m.. so you, president trump speech ended at 1:11p:m.. so at 2:38 p:m., by the time word which is the president that there is a problem down here, she is out urging people to support the police, stay peaceful, support or capital police and law enforcement, they are on the side of the country. stay peaceful.

at 3:13 p:m., president trump urged protesters at the us capitol to remain peaceful, no violence, remember, we are the party of law and order. . _, remember, we are the party of law and order. ~ .., ., remember, we are the party of law and order-— hello and welcome if you're watching on pbs in the us or around the world. this is the coverage of donald trump's impeachment trial. his defence lawyers have been presenting his case. let's continue to listen in. �* , ., ., his case. let's continue to listen in. �* , ., ~' ., his case. let's continue to listen in. let's walk to the actual timeline- _ in. let's walk to the actual timeline. at _ in. let's walk to the actual timeline. at 11:15 - in. let's walk to the actual timeline. at 11:15 a:m., i in. let's walk to the actual. timeline. at 11:15 a:m., police security camera video show crowds forming near the capital reflection pool forming near the capital reflection pool. a full 115 minutes before president trump even took the stage onjanuary six. let me repeat that, violent criminals were assembling at the capital over a mile away almost

an hour before the president added a